WASHINGTON v. HIGHLAND CHATEAU 5776, LLC
2:21-cv-02006
W.D. Tenn.Jun 25, 2025Background
- In November 2020, Jourdyn Washington, a minor, was killed by a stray bullet during a shooting at Highland Chateau Apartments in Memphis, Tennessee.
- Cedric Conley, a non-resident, fired an assault rifle at his ex-girlfriend; the bullet inadvertently killed Ms. Washington inside her grandmother’s apartment.
- Plaintiffs (Ms. Washington’s parents) sued the apartment owners/managers (Defendants), alleging negligent failure to secure the premises given a high crime history and lack of adequate security measures.
- Defendants sought to include Conley on the verdict form for comparative fault, arguing his actions should reduce their liability.
- Plaintiffs moved to exclude any argument about sharing fault with Conley, a non-party intentional tortfeasor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can fault be apportioned against a non-party intentional actor? | Fault should not be assigned to non-party Conley due to his intentional act. | Conley’s actions should be considered by the jury and may be found negligent. | Fault cannot be assigned to Conley on the verdict form. |
| Can comparative fault apply if the non-party acted negligently rather than intentionally? | All evidence shows Conley’s conduct was intentional; Turner prohibits comparison. | Conley’s actions may have been negligent, allowing apportionment. | Conley’s act was intentional; comparative fault does not apply. |
| Does the doctrine of transferred intent matter for liability apportionment? | Not applicable; facts and case law make intent clear. | No civil authority on transferred intent; focus on negligence. | Transferred intent doctrine is not relevant to this case. |
| Can Defendants use non-party acts to refute elements of Plaintiffs' claim? | Only to refute elements, not for apportioning fault. | Should be able to use for both liability and fault reduction. | Defendants can use acts to challenge duty/causation, not fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W.2d 815 (Tenn. 1997) (negligent and intentional fault comparison barred if intentional act is foreseeable risk)
- Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001) (joint liability where both negligent and intentional tortfeasors are defendants)
- Richardson v. Trenton Special School District, 2016 WL 3595563 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (foreseeability is a jury question)